Genesis 1 — An Overview of Creationist Interpretations

In this page "creationist" and "creationism" are
defined properly, to include all Judeo-Christian theists
who believe that God designed and created the universe, whether they think
the process of creation was young-earth (by miracles), old-earth
progressive (by miracles and natural process), or old-earth evolutionary (by
natural process), where "natural" does not mean "without God" because God
designed and created nature, sustains it and can guide it.

What is the meaning of Genesis 1? Does
it describe a 144-hour creation? Or
when we examine the text, are other interpretations possible or preferable? When
we carefully study the text of Genesis 1, in the context of the whole
Bible, should we conclude that the universe is young, or old, or that
neither
view is
clearly taught?

Two Interpretations?
Although the title of this page says "Two
Creationist Interpretations" it could be eight or more. But
it's only two if we think about TWO TYPES of interpretations — chronological (with
6 or more variations) and non-chronological (also
with variations). In addition, we can ask
questions about the "scientific
concepts" we see in Genesis and elsewhere
in the Bible.
Another perspective is that two types of interpretation
are young-earth (biblical
creationist) and old-earth (unbiblical evolutionary). This
us-and-them distinction is encouraged by prominent young-earth creationists
who define
their
own view
as "creation" while everything else is "evolution"
that either is atheistic or is on the road to atheism. The way they see
it, a young-earth view that is based on
the Bible is biblical creationism, but any old-earth view that is based on the Bible is
unbiblical evolutionism, even
when it's proposed by a Christian whose beliefs are in every way based
on the Bible. This claim is examined in AGE
OF THE EARTH — THEOLOGY by asking, "Is it wise,
for faith and evangelism, to imply that A Young Earth and The Gospel
of Jesus are
linked in a ‘package deal’ where either both are true, or neither
is true?"

A
Summary of Common Interpretations

Chronology
Does Genesis 1 describe history in chronological
sequence? In a day-age view, each yom (a
Hebrew word with several meanings, although it usually is translated as "day" in
Genesis 1) is a long time period of unspecified length. In a young-earth
interpretation, each yom is a 24-hour
day, and the entire creation process occurred in six consecutive
24-hour days. Or
creation might have occurred in nonconsecutive 24-hour
days with long periods between each day. Or the days might be analogical days. Or
maybe God described, in days
of proclamation, what would occur during the process
of creation. In a gap view there was an
initial creation (in Genesis 1:1) followed by a catastrophe (in 1:2) and
a re-creation on the earth
(beginning in 1:3).
Or is the intended meaning historical but non-chronological? In
a framework view,
the six days form a logical framework in which history is arranged
topically, and probably not chronologically.* The two
problems in
Genesis 1:2 — the
earth was "formless and empty" — are
solved in Days 1-3 (by separations that produce form) and
Days 4-6 (by filling each form). And if you compare the separations and fillings in
each pair of days (1-and-4, 2-and-5, 3-and-6)
you will
find parallels between these related aspects of creation. {* claims
about chronology vary: a person who thinks "there is a
framework" can claim "the history is also chronological"
or "it's not chronological" or anything in-between}

Concepts
What is the purpose of the concepts used in Genesis to describe our world? Everyone agrees that Genesis 1 teaches theology. But does it also
teach science? In Genesis 1 do we see the scientific what-and-when details
of creation, as if the process had been videorecorded? When we ask "what does Genesis 1 teach us about science?" this is part of a more general set of questions asking "what does the Bible teach (and not teach) about science, history, and theology?" and "are these teachings correct?"
Some scholars say "no, Genesis does not teach science" because they think the descriptions
in Genesis 1 were written specifically for the original
readers,
in
their
cultural context, by using the "scientific concepts" of familiar
theories
about physical
reality (in
their ancient
near-eastern cosmology) for the purpose of more effectively
challenging false theories about spiritual reality (in
the polytheistic "nature
religions" of surrounding cultures). {more about concepts}

Theology
ALL
interpretations acknowledge
the clear statements of essential creation-theology in Genesis 1: Everything
in nature was created by God, and is subordinate to God. There
are no polytheistic "nature
gods" so we should worship only the one true God who created everything. God's
creation is good but is not divine, so nature is placed in proper perspective. God
declared His creation to be "very good" so
we can reject the idea that physical things (created by God) are intrinsically
bad; our
problem is sin, not physicality. And humans are special because
God created us in His own image.

There is No Consensus
Linguistic scholars and theologians who are evangelical Christians, after
careful studies of Genesis and the Bible as a whole, have not reached agreement
about
the
meaning
of
Genesis
1. For example, in 1982 the International Council on Biblical
Inerrancy decided (by agreement of all members except one, Henry
Morris) to not include a 144-hour creation as an essential component of
a fundamentalist
belief
in inerrancy. Creation-Relevant
Statements
of Affirmation & Denial from ICBI (3 k)

Brief Summaries (neutral,
not advocating any view)
•
Four
Views of the Biblical Creation Account (Calendar Day, Day-Age, Framework,
Analogical Days) by Reasons to Believe (3 k)
• The Genesis Debate: Three Views on the Days
of Creation, with each view (24-Hour, Day-Age, Framework) explained by its proponents, followed by responses (from the other views) and a counter-response: publisher's
description (5 k + 3k) and review (7 k)

Comprehensive
Creation Reports by theologically
conservative denominations
•
Report
of the Creation Study Committee (2000) for Presbyterian
Church in America: This report is large, but the Table of
Contents has links taking you to each of the sections — which examine interpretations
of Genesis 1 (Calendar Day,
Day-Age,
Framework, Analogical
Days, and others) and much more — where you then can decide what to
read. (233 k of text in main body
+ 37k in appendix)
• Report
of the Committee to Study the Views of Creation (2004) for Orthodox
Presbyterian Church: This report is even larger, but you can see what's available
— sections on views (day of ordinary length, day of unspecified length, day-age, framework,
analogical day) and much more — in the Table of Contents, and use an easy math
trick to overcome the lack of links; for example, to find the Day-Age
View (which the ToC says is on page 1637) take the last two numbers (37) and
add 2 to get 39, then tell your
PDF-reader
to
go to
page
39. (380 k
+ 280k)

The Six DaysWhy was Genesis 1 written using a six-day structure? Is it a chronological
history of a creation that occurred in six 24-hour days, or
in six longer periods of time? Or is the six-day structure a literary
framework that provides a logical outline of creation? Or
is there another purpose?

The 6-Day FrameworkIn a framework view (summarized above)
the six days form a logical framework in which history is arranged topically
in two sets of days (1-2-3 for separations, and
4-5-6 for fillings) that have parallels between related aspects
of creation in three pairs of days: 1/4, 2/5, and 3/6.
Acknowledging the existence of this logical framework is compatible with
all major views of the creation process — young earth, old earth progressive (with natural process plus miraculous-appearing creations that were independent or by genetic modifications),
or old earth evolutionary — and with any combination of creation by miracles
and/or natural process. A claim that
the history in Genesis 1 is non-chronological also can be compatible with all major views, although
young-earth
creationists usually reject a nonchronological interpretation because the self-perceived plausibility of their view depends on a belief that "the Bible requires young-earth theology" because this requirement is necessary to overcome the weakness in their young-earth science. VIEWS
OF CREATION
It's important to recognize that non-chronological
does not mean non-historical. In the framework, creation historycould be written in a way that is only topical (not chronological, not making any statements about the sequence of creation
or its duration), or only chronological (if there is no framework *),
or both chronological and topical. / * You
can check this for yourself by reading
the text of Genesis 1 carefully, with an open mind, with the intention of answering this question: Is there a
framework with two
logical patterns (123 456, 14 25 36) in the six days?

pro-and-con:
• Report
of the Committee to study the Framework Hypothesis for the Orthodox
Presbyterian Church (140 k), concludes that "the
framework interpretation, as formulated in this report, accords with the
system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures and summarized in the
Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms of this Church." — Initially
a "Consensus Statement on Creation and Hermeneutics" was
available on the web, but it was eliminated, as explained in the final
paragraph of Section 1. (same
text in different format)
• a condensed version of this is in OPC's Comprehensive
Report, and the PCA's report also describes pros-and-cons.

YOM — What is the length of a "day"?IF the days are intended to be chronological , THEN how
long were the days?
In the Bible, the Hebrew word "yom" has several different meanings. What
is the intended meaning of yom in Genesis 1?

In a FRAMEWORK view (above) this
question
is
not important if the six days are the logical framework for
a topical history of creation that
is not the chronological history.ANALOGICAL DAYS view — the six days
are God's work days (measured in His time, not ours) that are analogous
to our work days, with Genesis 1 setting a pattern for our 7-day week of
work
and
rest.
SOLAR DAYS view — each yom is
a 24-hour day (a calendar day), and creation occurred during a period
of 144 hours; this
is almost always a young-earth view, proposing that creation occurred recently,
usually 6,000-10,000 years ago.
DAY-AGE view — each yom is
a long period of time; this
is almost always an old-earth view, proposing that creation occurred during
a period lasting billions of years.
INTERMITTENT DAYS — with 24-hour days that
are separated by long periods of time.
DAYS OF PROCLAMATION view — in six consecutive
24-hour days, God proclaimed what he would create, but the actual
creations
did
not occur during this 144-hour period.
The GAP view (ruin-and-reconstruction) is described below.

ANALOGICAL DAYS
proposes that "the ‘days’ are God’s work-days, which are analogous, and not necessarily identical, to our work days, structured for the purpose of setting a pattern for our own rhythm of rest and work." {quoting part
of the Creation
Report (12 k) from PCAwhich summarizes the main ideas}

24-HOUR SOLAR DAYS
proposes (in a young-earth theory) that all creation occurred during a 144-hour period in the recent past.
• How
long were the days of Genesis 1? by Russell Grigg, who looks
at the
meaning of yom and concludes that "God,
through the ‘pen’ of
Moses, is going out of His way to tell us that the ‘days’ of
creation were literal earth–rotation
days." (10 k)
• "yom" means
a 24-hour day by Ken Ham (40 k + 8k)
• In the
Space of Six Days by Kenneth Gentry (17 k)
• A
View of Creation by Ashby Camp (150 k in 52 pages, but much of
it is footnotes)
• IOU — Answers In Genesis (young earth) has a links-section that
will be searched/evaluated to find useful pages.

FLEXIBILITY — questioning the necessity of a "solar days" view:• The
Days of Creation — a statement by Westminster Theological Seminary
explains why "we recognize that the exegetical
question of the length of the days of Genesis 1 may be an issue which cannot
be, and therefore is not intended by God to be, answered in dogmatic terms." (12 k)
• The
Days Of Genesis: An Old-Earth View by Paul Copan (written as part of a dialogue
with John MacArthur, who takes a young-earth view) claims that flexibility, regarding
the timing of creation, is
biblically justified (12 k)
• The
Trustworthiness of Scripture in Areas Relating to Natural Science by
Walter Bradley & Roger Olsen, is a multi-purpose paper discussing scripture
(mainly the text of Genesis 1, including "bara" and "asah" which
indicate the use of miracles and natural
process during creation) plus
science (about evolutions and age) written for the International
Council on Biblical Inerrancy in
1982. (old earth, 67 k
+ appendix by Norm Geisler + notes)

DEBATES between proponents and critics of a "solar day" view:
• Davis Young (old earth) and John Byl (young earth) discuss
relationships between Scripture and Geology: Part
1 and Part
2 by Young, response
from Byl and reply
by Young. (from Westminster Theological Journal, 1989)
• In a "Timothy Test" a young-earth
scientist, Russell Humphreys, asks us to imagine an intelligent nonscientist
in biblical
times
who knows
the scriptures
well (similar to Timothy,
the apprentice
of Paul); Humphreys claims that "if scripture
really is straightforward and sufficient, then the meaning Timothy derives
from the words is probably
the
meaning that
God intended everybody to get." Is this always a useful
interpretive principle? 1. Perry
Phillips (22 k) [old earth], 2. Russell
Humphreys (11 k) [young earth], 3. Jonathan
Sarfati (19 k) [young earth], 4. Perry
Phillips (22 k), where page sizes (22 k,...)
don't include end-notes.

DAY-AGE
proposes (in an old-earth theory) that each yom — which is the Hebrew word usually translated as "day" — was a long period of time, not a 24-hour day.
• Biblical
Evidence for an Old Earth by Stephen Jones, is a brief outline (4 k) of
arguments that are examined more closely in these pages:
•
the
meaning of "yom" by Rich Deem (10 k
+ 28k
references) / also, Biblical
Evidence for Long Creation Days (14 k + 2k) plus end-of-page
links that include literal
interpretation in Genesis 1 (19 k + 12k)
•
Word
Study of "yom" by Greg Neyman (16 k)
• The
Days of Creation: Hours or Eons? by Dick Fischer (32 k)
PSCF
• IF the six days of Genesis are intended
to describe the what-and-when chronology of creation (but this "if" is challenged
by the framework view) and if the days are long periods of time (but this "if" is challenged by the solar day view) — THEN we
can ask two questions: Do
any day-age views
of the Genesis creation chronology match
the nature chronology we have constructed from our scientific studies of
nature? This is one of the many questions about scientific concordism.

INTERMITTENT DAYS
proposes (in an old-earth theory) nonconsecutive 24-hour solar days; each "evening
and morning" is
a 24-hour yom which begins a long creation
period that still continues, so
the creation periods
overlap. This view was proposed
by Robert Newman & Herbert Eckelmann in the first edition (1977) of Genesis One and the Origin of the Earth; in the second edition (2007, with Perry Phillips as a third co-author) a
diagram (scroll down to page 70) clarifies the timings, and
the view is further explained by Newman in pages 70-72 & 60-62; other
parts of Chapters 4-5 (pages 53-74) examine the meaning of yom and
the chronology of creation.

DAYS OF PROCLAMATION (Revelatory Days)
proposes that, in the six days of Genesis 1, God proclaimed what he would create, but did not say when he would create.
• Days
of Proclamation by Glenn Morton, claims "Genesis 1 is the pre-planning
of the universe." (8 k)
• Days of Revelation
or Creation? by Charles Taylor, is a young-earth criticism
of this view (5 k)
• a
response
to Morton by
Ross Olson — and here are my suggestions, as editor of this page, if you want to find the part that is most relevant for interpreting Genesis: skip the
first part ("Does Genesis..." and "A Response..."); but in the "Critique..."
(which begins, "Glenn
Morton is a Christian. ...")
read
the
first
6
paragraphs
(3 k); then you can skip the remainder ("In all of this,...") which is a
typical
defense of
young-earth
science.

GAP THEORY (Ruin-and-Reconstruction) proposes (in an old-earth theory) that after the initial creation, billions of years passed during a long time-gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, ending with a catastrophe that left the earth "formless and empty"; then, during six days (in Genesis 1:3-2:1) the earth was re-created in its current form.
• AllAboutCreation has a summary
of
Gap Theory (2 k) and a young-earth
criticism (5 k); also, a series of pro-gap pages by David Reagan, an 8-step explanation by eHow, and Wikipedia (6 k).
• Formless and Void: Gap Theory Creationism by Tom McIver, published in the journal of NCSE, is a comprehensive paper (66 k) about gap theory, including "what it is" and why it's proposed, and its fascinating history.
• The Bible, Genesis and Geology is
a large website (with lots to explore!) by Gaines Johnson, explaining and defending his version of Gap Theory.
• Gap Theory was much more popular a century ago (when it was featured in the Scofield Reference Bible) than it is now; AllAboutCreation says (about science) "most Bible scholars today interpret the geological record either in a manner consistent with the reigning Lyellian/Darwinian paradigm or as a result of the catastrophic processes which occurred during Noah’s Flood" and (about theology) "most Bible scholars today do not see any justification for the Gap Theory in the biblical text." Now, gap theory is criticized by advocates of both an old earth and
young earth,including old-earthers Rich
Deem (5 k) and Hugh
Ross (14 k), and young-earthers at CreationWiki (4 k) plus Monty
White (6 k), Henry
Morris (#1 & #2) (10 k & 10 k), Bert Thompson (23 k), Ham & Sarfati & Wieland (#1 & #2) (11 k & 21 k), Ken
Ham (31 k), and Jack Sofield (45 k).

Biblical Concordism — Theological, Historical, and Scientific Does the Bible
teach science? If a person answers "yes" and also thinks "the science is correct," they are claiming a concordance between the Bible and science, and their view is called concordism.
When we think about concordism we can ask two questions — What claims are made in the biblical text? Are these claims truebecause they correspond to reality? — in three areas, for theology, human history, and science. Thus, we can think about theological concordism (what claims about theology are in the text? do these theological claims match spiritual reality?), historical concordism (what claims about human history are in the text? do these historical claims match historical reality?), and scientific concordism (what claims about science are in the text? do these scientific claims match physical reality?).
Proponents of an accommodationismview think the "science" in scripture is just the familiar Ancient Near-Eastern Cosmology of ancient cultures, so they do not accept scientific concordism. They think the scriptural descriptions of nature were accommodated to match the ancient views of nature in the culture of the
original writers and readers of Genesis. God accomodated the original readers by using (instead of changing) their incorrect views of nature and its history, in order to more effectively communicate with them so He could more effectively
challenge their incorrect theology and change it to correct theology.

If there is some independence between the three areas (theology, history, science), conclusions for them can differ. For example, a proponent of accommodationist Ancient Near-Eastern Cosmology can say "yes" to theological concordism (because theological claims are made, and they seem to match reality) but "no" to scientific concordism (because no scientific claims are made), and for historical concordism can say "no" for Genesis 1-11 but "yes" for Genesis 12 onward through the New Testament. A rigid young-earth creationist says "yes" for all three concordisms, and claims they are linked together so either all succeed or all fail.
But an atheist can say "no, these concordisms are interdependent, not independent," and there is a failed concordism because "yes, Genesis 1 does make young-earth science claims" but "no, these scientific claims don't match the physical reality we observe in nature." Then this perceived failure is used by atheists as part of their efforts to challenge the overall credibility of the Bible, and thus to challenge its theological concordism.

How can we wisely use the Two
Books of God?
When we're thinking about the two books, in scripture and
nature, here is an important principle: We cannot compare the Bible with science,
we can only compare
a Bible-based theology (a fallible
human
interpretation of scripture)
with
a nature-based science (another
fallible human interpretation) while trying to search for truth.
General questions about relationships between theology and science (are they in conflict? independent? mutually supportive?) are
examined in THE
TWO BOOKS OF GOD — SCRIPTURE & NATURE.
Specific questions asking "is there science in Genesis?" are in ACCOMMODATION (with ANCIENT NEAR-EASTERN COSMOLOGY) or CONCORDISM.

A DISCLAIMER:
In this page you'll find links to resource-pages expressing a wide range of views,
which don't necessarily represent the views of the American Scientific Affiliation. Therefore, linking
to a page does not imply an endorsement by ASA. We
encourage you to use your own critical thinking to evaluate everything you
read.

This website for Whole-Person Education has TWO KINDS OF LINKS:
anITALICIZED LINK keeps you inside a page, moving you to
another part of it, and a NON-ITALICIZED LINK opens another page. Both keep everything inside this window,
so your browser's BACK-button will always take you back to where you were.